Charles Krauthammer's hypocrisy always amazes, even if it doesn't surprise. It's nice to see that the worst conservative intellect this side of David Brooks hasn't lost anything.
His latest WP column was just reprinted by the local paper, which likes to lean rightward on Sundays. There have been weeks where there are only right-wing pieces in the Sunday Forum section. I guess he's a reliable mouthpiece for conservative thought.
Besides Krauthammer's usual specious criticisms of the Obama administration, there are three things that struck me about the column:
1. Krauthammer scoffs at revenue raised by a hypothetical tax increase as a "rounding error," because it would have dropped last fiscal year's deficit from $1.29 trillion to "only" $1.21 trillion. That's /$80 billion/. Eighty billion dollars is a rounding error? When a few million to fund public broadcasting and Planned Parenthood are unaffordable luxuries? When funding FEMA to the tune of $1 billion for disaster relief is worth a government shutdown?
I guess $80 billion is not worth getting only when it comes from the wealthy.
2. The Tea Party "program" of lower taxes, less (social) spending, and less deregulation is what caused the economic crisis, and the calls for reduced federal spending has helped prolong it. How is this something worth defending as having intellectual value? It's like Paul Ryan's economic plan.
3. How is it fair to grumble that the Occupy Wall Street protestors shouldn't complain if they don't offer a solution to the problems? It was, after all, good enough for the Republicans, with no Krauthammer objections.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Connie Schultz
I'm catching up on some topics from the past month. Sorry for the delay.
I'm saddened at Connie Schultz's departure from The Plain Dealer, but not surprised. It's hard to work without management support, and Schultz's publicly humiliated and demoted her. I'll miss her columns, which were an antidote to The Plain Dealer's continuing rightward trend.
I'm saddened at Connie Schultz's departure from The Plain Dealer, but not surprised. It's hard to work without management support, and Schultz's publicly humiliated and demoted her. I'll miss her columns, which were an antidote to The Plain Dealer's continuing rightward trend.
Class Warfare?
The Republicans have said the proposed minimum tax rate for millionaires is "class warfare" that "punishes job creation." OK. So what about this picture do they think is wrong?
Tax rates are as low as they've been in sixty years, we've been through a decade of deregulation that is partly to blame for the worldwide economic meltdown, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in capital, and the "job creators" are getting wealthier -- poised to use that wealth for the greater good.
Conditions are ideal. There has never been a better time for an economic boom.
Why, then, is unemployment so high? Where are the jobs conservative dogma says should have been created? And why, after having promised to do so when elected, have Congressional Republicans declined to introduce any jobs legislation to take advantage of the conditions?
Tax rates are as low as they've been in sixty years, we've been through a decade of deregulation that is partly to blame for the worldwide economic meltdown, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in capital, and the "job creators" are getting wealthier -- poised to use that wealth for the greater good.
Conditions are ideal. There has never been a better time for an economic boom.
Why, then, is unemployment so high? Where are the jobs conservative dogma says should have been created? And why, after having promised to do so when elected, have Congressional Republicans declined to introduce any jobs legislation to take advantage of the conditions?
Occupy Wall Street
In the last week, I've had three or four people ask me "what's up with those goddamn kids in New York?" It's not that hard to figure out.
Let's see who the players are. On the one hand, we have people who brought the world economy to the brink of failure while adding nothing of value to it, needed to be saved from themselves by the taxpayers, and changed nothing. Nothing. The bonuses after the Great Recession and the bailout were as big as before, and nobody lost his job.
On the other hand, we have everybody else.
In 2008, after being rescued to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars by the taxpayers, Wall Street firms paid out $18 billion in bonuses. (On which they paid very little taxes, but that's a post for another day.) At the same time, everyone else suffered. Prices for energy and food spiked. Seniors living on savings lost money as interest rates cratered.
I won't even go into the rise of the Tea Party and their calls for lower government spending, even in the face of inadequate aggregate demand. It's hard enough to even try to explain inadequate aggregate demand.
So what's it all about? It's pretty easy: why hasn't anyone paid the price for this? I mean, among those who caused it -- everyone else, you and me included, paid the price. For the Wall Street folks, huge bonuses and job security. The only thing missing is negative consequences.
The "culture of accountability" in the United States? It exists, don't get me wrong. Just not on Wall Street.
Let's see who the players are. On the one hand, we have people who brought the world economy to the brink of failure while adding nothing of value to it, needed to be saved from themselves by the taxpayers, and changed nothing. Nothing. The bonuses after the Great Recession and the bailout were as big as before, and nobody lost his job.
On the other hand, we have everybody else.
In 2008, after being rescued to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars by the taxpayers, Wall Street firms paid out $18 billion in bonuses. (On which they paid very little taxes, but that's a post for another day.) At the same time, everyone else suffered. Prices for energy and food spiked. Seniors living on savings lost money as interest rates cratered.
I won't even go into the rise of the Tea Party and their calls for lower government spending, even in the face of inadequate aggregate demand. It's hard enough to even try to explain inadequate aggregate demand.
So what's it all about? It's pretty easy: why hasn't anyone paid the price for this? I mean, among those who caused it -- everyone else, you and me included, paid the price. For the Wall Street folks, huge bonuses and job security. The only thing missing is negative consequences.
The "culture of accountability" in the United States? It exists, don't get me wrong. Just not on Wall Street.
We have to do better
I read three things a few weeks ago that really bothered me. The national ratio of ceo-to-worker pay hit 325:1. The number of people in poverty hit 46.2 million (27.4% of blacks and 22% of children live below the poverty line). CEOs of 25 large corporations were paid more than their companies paid in taxes, thanks to rebates and tax credits.
Income inequality is the biggest obstacle to economic growth. It has been increasing steadily since 1980, with the largest increases going to the top 1%.
The top 20% control 85% of American wealth; the bottom 40% control around 0.3% (financial wealth is worse: the top 20% control 93%). The top 20% receive about 61% of income, the top 1% about 24%, and the rich are getting richer. The top 1% are getting richer the fastest. The bottom 60% of households saw income fall in 2010.
We hear a lot about income tax, but very little about the payroll tax, which provides nearly the same amount of revenue, and hits the poor and middle classes much harder. Or that the Bush tax cuts are primarily responsible for increases in "zero tax liability."
We hear that returning tax levels to what they were ten years ago would be a "crushing blow." That anyone who favors higher tax rates for the wealthy is a "socialist." That having everyone pay payroll taxes on all his income would be "crippling." We need more.
The best approach is probably a combination of a more progressive tax system with fewer loopholes and rebates and higher top rates, and a government-led effort to reduce unemployment.
Bottom line: We are a wealthy country. We can do better.
Income inequality is the biggest obstacle to economic growth. It has been increasing steadily since 1980, with the largest increases going to the top 1%.
The top 20% control 85% of American wealth; the bottom 40% control around 0.3% (financial wealth is worse: the top 20% control 93%). The top 20% receive about 61% of income, the top 1% about 24%, and the rich are getting richer. The top 1% are getting richer the fastest. The bottom 60% of households saw income fall in 2010.
We hear a lot about income tax, but very little about the payroll tax, which provides nearly the same amount of revenue, and hits the poor and middle classes much harder. Or that the Bush tax cuts are primarily responsible for increases in "zero tax liability."
We hear that returning tax levels to what they were ten years ago would be a "crushing blow." That anyone who favors higher tax rates for the wealthy is a "socialist." That having everyone pay payroll taxes on all his income would be "crippling." We need more.
The best approach is probably a combination of a more progressive tax system with fewer loopholes and rebates and higher top rates, and a government-led effort to reduce unemployment.
Bottom line: We are a wealthy country. We can do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
